United States v. Mayes (Myrick)
701 F. App'x 69
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Myrick pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and two counts of murder in aid of racketeering; district court sentenced him principally to 204 months’ imprisonment.
- Government moved under §5K1.1 / 18 U.S.C. §3553(e) for a below-mandatory-life sentence based on Myrick’s substantial assistance; court granted a departure/variance resulting in a 17-year sentence.
- At sentencing Myrick argued mitigating factors (early loss of father, history of concussions, depression) and emphasized that an earlier plea offer would have capped exposure at 20 years.
- Myrick appealed, challenging the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable; he did not object below to procedural error, so review is for plain error.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding the district court adequately considered the record and that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable given Myrick’s violent conduct and convictions for two murders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness | N/A (government as appellee) | Myrick: court failed to consider mitigating personal history (father’s death, concussions, depression) | No procedural error; sentencing transcript shows consideration of arguments; plain-error not met |
| Adequacy of district court explanation | Gov: court explained basis for lengthy sentence | Myrick: court’s remark that little was mitigating shows inadequate consideration | Court’s explanation sufficient; judge need not address every argument or each §3553(a) factor individually |
| Substantive reasonableness | N/A | Myrick: 17-year sentence is unreasonable given pre-cooperation plea offer and cooperation remorse | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; cooperation disclosure of additional crimes doesn’t absolve culpability |
| Effect of prior sentence overlap | N/A | Myrick: prior 100-month narcotics sentence overlaps, arguing it should affect current sentence | Prior narcotics sentence was for far less serious conduct and does not materially affect reasonableness of current sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for review of reasonableness of sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural-error examples and need to consider §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference on substantive reasonableness; only extreme sentences are reversible)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards for identifying substantively unreasonable sentences)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review where defendant failed to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Morillo, [citation="540 F. App'x 63"] (2d Cir. 2013) (cooperator’s disclosure of additional crimes does not necessarily diminish cooperation benefit)